Standing Committee B

[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]

Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment) Bill

Edward Davey: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. Welcome back to this afternoon's sitting. I imagine that your break was more enjoyable than mine, but it is good to be back in Committee.
 What will happen if we reach 7 o'clock and have not finished the business? I do not recall whether the sittings motion that we discussed on 18 June made provision for that. In case of such an eventuality, will it be in order for me, after discussing the matter with colleagues, to draft a new sittings motion? I should be grateful to receive advice on what action you would like us to take if we reach 7 o'clock without having completed our proceedings.

Edward O'Hara: There are two responses to that point of order. First, we are not bound to finish our proceedings by 7 pm. The Committee may proceed until any hour. Secondly, should it be necessary for me to receive a new sittings motion, it is desirable that it should come from the promoter of the Bill. I give the hon. Gentleman that advice in answer to his question, but he should wait to see how we go.

Edward Davey: Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. You will have noted that our numbers have become depleted since the morning sitting. We have also lost the promoter of the Bill, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), although he may return at any second. This is the first private Member's Bill that I have had the pleasure to discuss in Committee—despite this being my second term in Parliament, it is a new experience—and I do not know the procedure. Can we continue our deliberations in the absence of the promoter of the Bill, who will not hear our arguments and thus will not be able to decide whether he wishes to amend the Bill? It seems rather odd on first principles that someone who is pushing through a Bill is not here to listen to it being debated. That seems to go against the whole process of democracy.

Edward O'Hara: The hon. Gentleman may hold that opinion, but my duty is to proceed with the business if I see five members of the Committee in the Room—and I do.

Edward Davey: I am grateful for those two clarifications, Mr. O'Hara. They will help me to decide how to proceed during the next few hours.

Clause 1 - Withholding of housing benefit on grounds of anti-social behaviour

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 1, in page 1, line 2, leave out 'three' and insert 'five'.—[Mr. Clappison.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Edward O'Hara: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following: Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 2, leave out 'three' and insert 'five'.
 Amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 3, after 'individual', insert 'permanently'. 
 Amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 3, after 'individual', insert 
'who for more than twelve months has been'.
 Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 4, leave out 'magistrates'. 
 Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 4, leave out 'summary'. 
 Amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 5, after second 'tenant', insert 
'and reasonable attempts to offer support and resettlement services have been refused'.
 Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 5, leave out 'Secretary of State may' and insert 
'court concerned on the most recent occasion may order the Secretary of State to'.
 Amendment No. 13, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'. 
 Amendment No. 15, in page 1, line 8, at end insert 
'provided that in the case of a tenant of a registered social landlord the Secretary of State shall first obtain the agreement of the registered social landlord'.
 Amendment No. 16, in page 1, line 8, at end insert 
'provided that in the case of a tenant of a local authority the Secretary of State shall first obtain the agreement of the local authority'.
 Amendment No. 17, in page 1, line 8, at end insert 
'provided that in the case of a tenant of a public body the Secretary of State shall first obtain the agreement of the public body and in this section the term public body includes— 
 (a) a local authority 
 (b) a registered social landlord 
 (c) a government department 
 (d) a police authority and 
 (e) a health authority or primary care trust'.
 Amendment No. 14, in page 1, line 8, at end insert— 
'(1A) A local housing authority or a local social services authority may make recommendations to the Secretary of State regarding the withholding of benefit under subsection (1) above and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to consider all such recommendations before taking any action under subsection (1)'.
 Amendment No. 18, in page 1, line 9, after 'means', insert 'a pattern of consistent'. 
 Amendment No. 19, in page 1, line 9, after second 'behaviour', insert 'consistently'. 
 Amendment No. 20, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'cause' to end and insert 
'serious harm, harassment, alarm or distress to others where the behaviour is either linked to the occupation of the home or occurs in the locality of the home'.
 Amendment No. 25, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'or' and insert 'and'. 
 Amendment No. 23, in page 1, line 10, at end add 
'and which in the opinion of the Secretary of State cannot better be dealt with in any other way than that specified in this Act'.
 Amendment No. 24, in page 1, line 10, at end add 
'and which in the opinion of— 
 (a) the Secretary of State and 
 (b) the local housing authority and 
 (c) the local social services authority 
 cannot better be dealt with in any other way than that specified in this Act'.
 Amendment No. 21, in page 1, line 10, at end add— 
'(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) the Secretary of State may only withhold any payment of housing benefit if he is satisfied that exceptional hardship will not result for the tenant or any person who resides with them.'.
 Amendment No. 22, in page 1, line 10, at end add— 
'(3) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Social Security Act 1998 (decisions against which an appeal lies), after sub-paragraph (e) there shall be inserted ''; or 
 (f) section 1 of the Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment) Act 2002.''.'.
 Amendment No. 26, in page 1, line 10, at end add— 
'(3) The Secretary of State shall not take any action pursuant to subsection (1) above until he has given any person against whom any such action is intended to be taken a reasonable opportunity to make representations to him or any person appointed by him as to why such action should not be taken.'.
 Amendment No. 27, in page 1, line 10, at end add— 
'(3) The Secretary of State shall not take any action pursuant to subsection (1) above until he has received the advice of a case conference called for the purpose of considering the proposed action. 
 (4) For the purposes of this section a case conference is a meeting called by the Secretary of State of all agencies which he considers may be able to offer him guidance and notwithstanding the generality the following persons shall be invited to such a meeting, namely— 
 (a) a representative of the local housing authority 
 (b) a representative of the local social services authority 
 (c) a representative of the local police 
 (d) the person or persons against whom action is proposed to be taken.'.
 Clause stand part. 
 Amendment No. 28, in clause 2, page 1, line 13, after 'individual', insert 'permanently'. 
 Amendment No. 29, in clause 2, page 1, line 13, after 'individual', insert 'who for more than twelve months has been'. 
 New clause 1—Effect on child— 
'( ) Before any decision to withhold payment of housing benefit is made regard must be had to the effect of this on the welfare of any children in such a household.'.
 New clause 2—Representations— 
'( ) In making a decision to withhold payment of housing benefit regard may be had to representations from any person affected by the anti-social behaviour concerned.'.
 Government new clause 3—Anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings 
'(1) This section applies where— 
 (a) on any occasion a person (''the offender'') is convicted of one or more offences by or before a court, but 
 (b) a custodial sentence of a year or more is not imposed on the offender in respect of the conviction, or any of the convictions. 
 (2) If it appears to the prosecutor that, by reason of any or all of the conduct giving rise to the conviction or convictions, the offender may have behaved in an anti-social manner, the prosecutor must notify the court to that effect. 
 (3) Where— 
 (a) the court is notified under subsection (2), and 
 (b) it is satisfied that, by reason of any or all of the conduct giving rise to the conviction or convictions, the offender has behaved in an anti-social manner, 
 it must make a declaration that he has so behaved. 
 (4) A declaration under this section must specify the day on which the conduct in respect of which it is made occurred or, if that conduct occurred on more than one day, the earliest and latest days on which it occurred. 
 (5) For the purposes of this section, a person has behaved in an anti-social manner if his conduct caused, or was likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons (not of the same household as himself) residing in, visiting, or otherwise engaged in lawful activity in, the locality of his home. 
 (6) In this section— 
 (a) any reference to a conviction includes a conviction in relation to which a court makes an order for a conditional discharge (but not a conviction in relation to which a court makes an order for an absolute discharge), and 
 (b) ''custodial sentence''— 
 (i) in relation to England and Wales, has the meaning given in section 76 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c.6), and 
 (ii) in relation to Scotland, means a sentence as defined in section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.46). 
 (7) In section 50 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c.19) (meaning of ''sentence''), in subsection (1), after paragraph (h) insert ''; and 
 (i) a declaration under section (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings) of the Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment) Act 2002 (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings).'' 
 (8) In section 108 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43) (rights of appeal), at the end of subsection (3) insert ''and a declaration under section (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings) of the Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment) Act 2002 (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings).'' 
 (9) For the purposes of any appeal or review, a declaration under this section made by a court in Scotland is a sentence.'.
 And the following amendments thereto: (a), leave out subsection (1)(b). 
 (c), in subsection (2) after ''effect'', insert 
'and provide written evidence, including at least a statement from the landlord of the offender.'.
 (d), in subsection (3)(b) after ''convictions'', insert 
'and by reason of the written evidence it has considered as to the specific anti-social behaviour concerned,'.
 (b), in subsection (5), after ''home'', insert 
', provided that if a person can show that he acted in self defence or under extreme provocation then his behaviour shall not be deemed to be anti-social'.
 Government new clause 4—Anti-social behaviour declarations: civil proceedings— 
'(1) This section applies where— 
 (a) in England and Wales, the High Court, a county court or a magistrates' court, or 
 (b) in Scotland, the Court of Session or the sheriff, makes a prescribed order in any civil proceedings, other than prescribed proceedings. 
 (2) Any prescribed party to the proceedings may apply to the court for a declaration that any other prescribed party has behaved in an anti-social manner by reason of any or all of the conduct in respect of which the order is made. 
 (3) If the court is satisfied on an application under subsection (2) that the person concerned has so behaved it must make a declaration accordingly. 
 (4) A declaration under this section must specify the day on which the conduct in respect of which it is made occurred or, if that conduct occurred on more than one day, the earliest and latest days on which it occurred. 
 (5) Subsection (5) of section (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.'. 
 And the following amendments thereto: (a), in subsection (3), after 'accordingly', insert 
 ', provided that the court need not make such a declaration if it is of the opinion that the person acted in self defence or under extreme provocation.'.
 (b), after subsection (3), insert— 
'(3A) A court may only make a declaration under subsection (3) above against a person over the age of 65 if it considers that there are exceptional circumstances and if it is satisfied that no other method of dealing with that person's behaviour is applicable.'.
 (c), after subsection (5), add— 
'(6) Where a court is minded to make an order under this section and it forms the view that any person against whom the order is intended is unable to properly represent himself and is not represented the court shall adjourn the proceedings to give any such person the opportunity of securing legal representation.'.
 Government new clause 5—Withholding of benefit— 
'(1) Where a declaration is made under this Act in respect of a person, any housing benefit payable to him during the disqualification period shall be payable as if the rate of benefit were reduced in the prescribed manner. 
 (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in prescribed cases. 
 (3) Subsection (1) also does not apply to a declaration made in respect of a person (''declaration A'') where— 
 (a) another declaration made under this Act in respect of that person (''declaration B'') has been taken into account for the purposes of any previous application of that subsection, and 
 (b) any day which is a relevant day in relation to declaration A is also a relevant day in relation to declaration B. 
 (4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(b) ''relevant day'', in relation to a declaration under this Act, means— 
 (a) in a case where only one day is specified in the declaration under section (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings)(4) or (anti-social behaviour declarations: civil proceedings)(4), that day, and 
 (b) in any other case, the earliest and latest days so specified and any day between them. 
 (5) Where a declaration by virtue of which subsection (1) operates is quashed or set aside, all such payments and other adjustments shall be made as would be necessary if the declaration had not been made. 
 (6) Where, in the case of a declaration by virtue of which subsection (1) operates, the date or dates specified under section (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings)(4) or (anti-social behaviour declarations: civil proceedings)(4) are varied by a court (on appeal or otherwise), all such payments and other adjustments must be made as would be necessary if the declaration had been made as varied. 
 (7) In this section ''disqualification period'' means such period, not exceeding 52 weeks, as may be determined by or in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.
 And the following amendments thereto: (c), in subsection (1), leave out ''shall'' and insert ''may''. 
 (a), after subsection (1), insert— 
'(1A) Where a declaration is made under this Act in respect of a person any housing benefit payable to a person in whose household he resides may be payable as if the rate of benefit were reduced in the prescribed manner. 
 (1B) Where a declaration is made under this Act in respect of a person and the commission of the anti-social behaviour leading to the making of the declaration took place within three years of the commission of anti-social behaviour leading to a previous declaration of anti-social behaviour, any housing benefit payable to him or a person in whose household he resides may be withheld.'.
 (b), in subsection (7), after second 'period,', insert 
'not less than 13 weeks and'.
 (d), in subsection (7), leave out ''52'' and insert ''26''. 
 New clause 8—Old persons— 
'.—No benefit shall be withheld under this Act from any person over the age of 65'.
 New clause 9—Children under five years— 
'.—No benefit shall be withheld under this Act from any person where in the opinion of the Secretary of State it would severely damage the health or welfare of any child under five years of age.'.
 New clause 10—Children under five years (No. 2)— 
'No benefit shall be withheld under this Act from any person where in the opinion of the local social services authority it would severely damage the health or welfare of any child under five years of age and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ask that authority for its opinion before he takes any action under this Act in cases involving children under five.'.
 New clause 12—Reviews (No. 2)— 
'( ) The Secretary of State shall publish and send to the National Assembly for Wales a review of the working of section 1 above in Wales after a period of twelve months and shall take into account any points made by the Assembly in any future actions taken under section 1.'.
 New clause 13—Reviews (No. 3)— 
'( ) The Secretary of State shall publish and send to the Scottish Parliament a review of the working of section 1 above in Scotland after a period of twelve months and shall take into account any points made by the Parliament in any future actions taken under section 1.'.

Edward Davey: Before we adjourned for lunch, I was speaking to amendments Nos. 23 and 24. I had not yet referred to amendment No. 21, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) alleged. To remind members of the Committee, I shall explain the effects of the amendments, which appear on page 1167 of the amendment paper. Amendment No. 23 would ensure that the benefits sanction under the Bill does not come into effect unless the matter
''in the opinion of the Secretary of State cannot better be dealt with in any other way than that specified in this Act''.
 Amendment No. 24 is broader, suggesting that those who should opine on such matters should include, in 
 addition to Secretary of State, the local housing authority and the local social services authority. 
 Before we adjourned, I was making the point that there are alternatives to benefit sanctions. I described one scheme that was piloted by Liberal Democrat colleagues on Islington council in London. The scheme involved acceptable behaviour contracts that are specifically designed to deal with the appalling behaviour that all hon. Members are concerned about. I shall continue my explanation because I want to persuade the Committee that unless we examine alternatives for the process described in the Bill, many cheaper, quicker, more effective options may never be considered. 
 All the evidence that I have seen, whether from the social exclusion unit or other Government research, suggests that one of the problems of dealing with antisocial behaviour is that many of the authorities involved are not aware of best practice or of all the solutions that are open to them. Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 would ensure that the process envisaged by the promoter of the Bill is integrated with the alternatives that I believe are more effective. 
 When we adjourned I was talking about acceptable behaviour contracts. I will not describe them in detail because that would be repeating myself, but I want to show how successful they are and how seriously other people take them. Although they were piloted in Islington only two years ago, authorities in more than 90 different parts of the United Kingdom have expressed interest in them. To date, 22 other London boroughs, including the royal borough of Kingston, are seeking to participate by introducing schemes along the same lines. Such interest shows that acceptable behaviour contracts are highly regarded as well as effective. The Home Office agrees. It cited the scheme in Islington as an example of good practice, and documents relating to the scheme are available on the Home Office's crime and disorder website. 
 Other schemes have cited Islington's as an example of good practice. Operation Arrow, for example, was a two-year Government-funded project identifying options to reduce auto crime. It found that in Islington acceptable behaviour contracts had made a significant impact by reducing certain people's antisocial behaviour in respect of other people's automobiles. There is a widely held opinion that that very new approach to dealing with antisocial behaviour is effective, and as a Liberal Democrat I am delighted to be associated with the group of people who piloted the scheme. Naturally, that is one of the reasons that I am keen to get such options into the Bill. I want to ensure that the Government considers them before introducing housing benefit sanctions, which many people within the House and outside believe is a draconian measure. 
 Acceptable behaviour contracts have worked well in Islington and have also been found to complement Government policy. Indeed, antisocial behaviour orders work very well with acceptable behaviour contracts. The research, discussions, negotiations and 
 monitoring of acceptable behaviour contracts provides the evidence that is needed when an application is made to a court for an antisocial behaviour order. The contracts fit very well into processes that the Government have previously adopted—which I heartily recommend to authorities throughout the country—and have since tried to refine in other legislation. There is a real fit with existing Government policy in this area. It is one reason why I am desperately trying to persuade the Government that they should not go to the other extreme before they ensure that such options are considered. 
 On Second Reading, I was asked whether acceptable behaviour contracts are legally binding. They are not, but that is one reason why they have been so effective. They do not involve the judicial system—someone cannot go to the courts and say, ''He's broken the contract.''—but they can be used to facilitate eviction. They are the backstop to that process. While not legally binding, they feed into an important process to stop antisocial behaviour. However, because they are not tied to the benefits system or to the judicial process, people ask whether they are taken seriously and whether people fear eviction. The answer is yes.

Vernon Coaker: No.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman's comment only reinforces my point that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee must look at the alternatives, because those alternatives are working. Families who exhibit antisocial behaviour are really concerned about the possibility of being evicted when they sign a contract. That is what the evidence shows. That is the experience. People should take notice when a council or local police force says that it is an effective remedy.
 Acceptable behaviour contracts are one element of the sort of thing that I envisage would be considered as an alternative, prior to the imposition of benefits sanctions, if amendments Nos. 23 or 24 were made. Other solutions could also be considered prior to the benefits sanctions being triggered. I am grateful to the social exclusion policy action team for its report of March 2000, which highlighted some of the successful alternatives, one of which is mediation. 
 Like other hon. Members, I have had to use mediation services. When constituents come to my advice sessions, which I hold twice a week, I get to hear of neighbourhood disputes and antisocial behaviour, and mediation is one of the solutions that I discuss when people present such problems to me. Mediation services are not well developed in my borough and we rely on the voluntary sector to provide some of them. I often end up having to use a voluntary provider if my constituents feel that mediation is best for them. 
 In Nottingham, there is a very efficient, proactive mediation service. It was developed and is managed by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, which is interesting. In different ways, it is trying to ensure that people who exhibit appalling behaviour are made to face up to the impact that it has on their victims. That is essential. It is vastly different from the benefit sanctions approach, 
 which does not tell the individual what is happening and what they are doing. There is no process that forces them to face up to their crimes and the consequences for the poor victims. 
 The mediation service that has done extremely well in Nottingham does that. Thus, it does not merely move the problem on, which I fear the Bill will do; instead, it finds a proper, long-term solution. I am told that the success rate is two thirds, which is high. That shows that we can avoid going down the route of the benefit sanction if we employ a panoply of measures, many of which I explored this morning.

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I think that the Committee has had enough, and I would like to move that the question be now put.

Edward O'Hara: I cannot accept a closure motion at this stage. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) is making a legitimate point. He is speaking to an amendment about alternatives to benefit sanctions, and so far he has done so without repetition. I assure him and the Committee that I am being vigilant of undue repetition, but I do not find it at this stage.

Edward Davey: Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. Can a closure motion be debated, or does the vote take place straight away?

Edward O'Hara: If I accept a closure motion, I put it to the Committee forthwith, without debate.

Edward Davey: Thank you, Mr. O'Hara.
 As you rightly said, I was talking about alternatives to benefit sanctions. From the mediation alternative I turn to the alternative of using specialist teams, which has been tried by many authorities throughout the country, in particular in Bradford. All the evidence suggests that antisocial behaviour is not being properly tackled in certain areas because no one takes responsibility for doing so. The different agencies—the local authority, the social landlord, or whoever—do not come together to pool their resources and tools and focus them on the problem. Specialist teams who do nothing but train, think and work in this area can make a huge difference. 
 That is a good use of council tax payers' money, because it can sort out problems in our community by pooling existing resources and focusing them more effectively. The specialist team in Bradford has a range of different functions. Its tenancy enforcement team ensures that serious incidents of antisocial behaviour by tenants are tackled. That team has developed close links with several other agencies, especially the police, and has successfully pursued antisocial behaviour orders, which I am sure the Government would applaud. I highlight that example to suggest that we must ensure that local authorities have things such as specialist teams by including them in the Bill. I would be interested to know whether other members of the Committee have such specialist teams in their local authorities. I am not aware of any in mine, and I would like to take that good practice back to my constituency. 
 The hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) said that many of the methods employed before the benefit sanction is used are all right if the landlord is a social landlord. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that he is concerned about private landlords. Often they are absentee landlords who just take the housing benefit cheque and have no commitment to or concern for the local community. We all object to that, but there are schemes to deal with that problem. There is a private landlord project in Newcastle upon Tyne called—

Edward O'Hara: Order. I am trying to be as generous as possible to the hon. Gentleman and to let him make his point, which at the moment is alternatives to benefit sanctions. Earlier in the debate I said that it was legitimate to cite other examples and perhaps say a little about them, but not to expatiate at undue length. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of doing that. If I do my utmost to give him the opportunity, in the face of some opposition, to make his legitimate points, he has an obligation to meet me half way.

Edward Davey: I assure you, Mr. O'Hara, that this is my last example of alternative enforcement measures. I have another example of prevention, but that is a separate point that I have not yet touched on.

Austin Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman can imagine my delight when this afternoon I came to the Committee somewhat late and found him still speaking. The Government and Opposition Front-Benchers took exactly one hour. He has now been speaking for one hour and 40 minutes. He has tabled 42 amendments to the Bill and there are 14 in this group. We do not even know, because he has not told us, which amendment he is talking to and how his comments relate to it. I know that he wants to be the hero of the harassers, but could he please bring some logic to his argument?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman does himself a great disservice with outbursts like that. He was indeed late; had he come in on time, he would have known that I started my remarks—I am sure that you will confirm this, Mr. O'Hara—by referring to amendments Nos. 23 and 24, which are the amendments to which I was speaking when we adjourned this morning. I hope that that clarifies the point. He might think that there has been no progress since then, but I have been giving more examples.
 I gave an undertaking that this next example would be my last example of enforcement measures and it will be. With the hon. Gentleman's patience, I should like to explain how the landlord project in Newcastle works to ensure that private landlords play their part in dealing with the problem of antisocial behaviour. The project brought the whole private sector together. The team had a database of all the different landlords. It took a lot of time investigating the ownership of all the different properties, and it contacted all the private landlords, who helped it to form a landlords' association for the area. It developed best practice with those landlords, and assisted them by giving them services to make their job easier. That is as an example in which all the problems that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East quite rightly raised are being tackled. 
 The final example, which relates to prevention, is simple—not rocket science and not new. It is about ensuring that people in authority in our communities are on the streets as often as possible. I am talking not about bobbies on the beat, but about community wardens, estate wardens, estate managers and so on. The presence of people in authority deters antisocial behaviour. I accept that some tenants and residents will still cock a snook at people in authority, but many will mend their ways—or at least become less outrageous in their behaviour—if there are people like community wardens around. That is a prevention mechanism. I should be careful because it does not quite fit into the process of the Bill, because we are taking about enforcement, but I wanted to give that example because alternatives exist. 
 Amendment No. 21, which is on page 1167 of the amendment paper, would ensure that the benefits sanction would not go ahead if the Secretary of State thought that it would cause exceptional hardship to the tenant or anyone residing with that tenant. We have heard that there may be a hardship regime, and I want to examine how other hardship regimes have worked. There is concern that hardship regimes that have been adopted through secondary legislation and administrative arrangements have not been effective. That is a strong argument for putting a duty on the Secretary of State to consider exceptional hardship. 
 The change would allow a defence and appeal mechanism for the tenant. If tenants experienced exceptional hardship, they could use the provision as a protection. I should have thought that all Committee members would welcome such a protection to ensure that we do not create destitution among a group in our society. That is the core of amendment No. 21. It is important to recognise that the thrust of both the Bill as it stands and the Government new clauses that, in effect, rewrite the Bill is to create hardship. 
 Whether the Bill prescribes a total withholding or a reduction of housing benefit, Shelter advises that either system would invariably lead to homelessness and destitution. It believes that tenants would quickly get into rent arrears, be evicted by their landlords and then be unable to secure further accommodation. Families would have to look to the social services authority to provide them with accommodation, which in some cases is of a low standard. Single people would be likely to end up sleeping on the streets, which surely goes against the Government's rough sleepers initiative. Those outcomes are real, not pretend, so the Secretary of State should have to take them into account. 
 One has to remember what will happen if one increases exceptional hardship, as I fear the Bill will do. That will be counter-productive. If we increase the levels of poverty and destitution among a group of people, many will turn to crime, which is serious antisocial behaviour. That would completely defeat the honourable intentions of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. Surely, therefore, he will want to include amendments to avert that. 
 The requirement in amendment No. 21 would be particularly relevant in cases in which the tenant's household includes children. We will move on to new clauses later, in which children—

Edward O'Hara: Order. I advise the hon. Gentleman that we had a general debate about the Bill in the Committee's first sitting, when all hon. Members present participated in a full debate. In this instance, I shall not be particularly tolerant of excessive expatiation.

Frank Field: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. As we have heard these arguments, albeit with different words being used, for a long time, when might you be prepared to accept a closure motion?

Edward O'Hara: The Committee will appreciate that I am listening extremely carefully. I have in mind what I said during this morning's sitting about the debate in our first sitting. We are not at a point at which I might consider a closure motion, but I am vigilant of when we might get there.

Edward Davey: Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. I accept what you said about debating hardship, although I wonder whether it will be in order to discuss excessive hardship that has been a consequence of other benefit sanctions regimes.

James Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I do not want to pre-empt the hon. Gentleman's argument, but we have already gone round the effects of other benefit sanctions half a dozen times during our debate.

Edward O'Hara: I was about to say that I am not prepared to listen to excessive further debate on that subject, given that we have had so much already.

Edward Davey: May I explain what I meant? I did not mean that I wanted to discuss alternatives to benefit sanctions. I accept your ruling, Mr. O'Hara, that we have discussed that matter at great length. I want to discuss the benefit sanctions themselves. We have not spent any time learning lessons from the new deal for young people. If young people refuse an option in the new deal or terminate an option early, they are sanctioned—

Edward O'Hara: Order. The Committee is considering the sanction of withholding housing benefit. Hon. Members may refer to other means, but the Committee's business is not to discuss other means at length.

Frank Field: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Hertsmere, Mr. O'Hara. In another place, the Liberal Democrats argued that the regime of penalties is ineffective; they said that they think that the Bill will be ineffective. Is it pertinent of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to argue that examining a supposedly ineffective regime is relevant?

Edward O'Hara: That is not a point of order, nor a point for me to comment on, although Committee members might take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Edward Davey: What I am seeking to do relates directly to amendment No. 21, which I have not been discussing for very long. I am trying to show the Committee that we need a safeguard to prevent exceptional hardship. Other regimes have not achieved that. The Minister has tried to say—he used almost these words this morning—that it is intended that the regulations that are likely to be forthcoming after the Bill is enacted will mirror the underpinning hardship regimes of previous benefit sanctions. The problem is that I do not believe that those regimes worked. There has been real hardship and I can quote an example to the Committee.
 A person was told to apply to a hardship fund because his jobseeker's allowance had been withheld. I shall read to the Committee what he told Government researchers when they were considering the effects of the hardship regime. I shall quote from Jill Vincent's ''Jobseeker's Allowance Evaluation: Qualitative Research on Disallowed and Sanctioned Claimants—Phase Two: After Jobseeker's Allowance'', which was published in 1998 by the Centre for Research in Social Policy. The sanctioned applicant said: 
''Ended up at the DSS . . . I went into one of these places, you know, big glass cages, filled in a form, handed the form over—''
 an application for a hardship payment— 
''and they said, sorry, you can't claim this. I said, 'why I've got no money . . . ' 'because we want you to go through an amount of hardship, it's basically a punishment . . . you can't have a loan, otherwise there'd be no point in stopping your money', so I couldn't even get money off the DSS.''

George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. Mindful of your strictures, may I refer you to column 18 of the Hansard of the Committee's first sitting, on Tuesday 18 June, where the hon. Gentleman makes the same point?

Edward O'Hara: I take the point of order and therefore suggest that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has made his point on the amendment adequately. I trust that he will make progress soon.

Edward Davey: I will, Mr. O'Hara. I simply wanted to examine the Government's objective in their new clauses and in their adoption of a regime similar regime to the one that was originally proposed, albeit with a few modifications. We have heard that one idea behind that approach is to affect and change behaviour.

Frank Field: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a Liberal Democrat press release. He might want to go on with the report, because the researcher concludes that the sanctions were effective in changing behaviour.

Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion tempts me. I was going to say that the results of the research into effects on behaviour are mixed. He is right to say that some research evidence shows that some behaviour is changed, but the report from which I quoted says that the findings are mixed. The behaviour of a number of claimants who were sanctioned did not change in any way.
 The report's details of why their behaviour was not changed go to the core of my argument. People did not 
 change their behaviour, because they were surprised that they had been sanctioned and they did not understand why they had been sanctioned. Some people felt that the sanction—

James Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. We seem to be returning to the argument that we had under the previous amendment, which was about whether the measure would be effective, not about hardship.

Edward O'Hara: Indeed. My patience is becoming strained. I have said several times that I am doing my best to be fair to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and to give him time to make legitimate points. However, I have also said that he has had an opportunity to make his point about the amendment. His remarks are somewhat repetitious with regard to a previous debate, so I strongly advise him to make progress—preferably to the next group of amendments.

Edward Davey: I intend to do that, Mr. O'Hara, but I was making a point about deterrence, and I believe that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is wrong: at no point have I discussed the effects on behaviour that would result from the lack of a hardship regime. I am sure that the record will show that I have not addressed those issues. The point is important, because the right hon. Member for Birkenhead seems to be convinced that the sanction approach will change behaviour. I simply do not believe that the evidence backs that up, but I shall progress to the next amendment.
 Amendment No. 22, which is on page 1167 of the amendment paper, relates to an appeals process. I suggest that we should use the standard appeals process that is used in many other parts of the benefits system. The amendment would give tenants whose housing benefit had been withheld the right to appeal the decision of the Secretary of State to a social security tribunal. That would ensure that the Bill was in line with other areas of social security law, especially where that law allows a right to appeal a decision to withhold benefit. Therefore, if the amendment were made, the Bill would be in line with the Government's approach to such matters in the past. 
 The amendment would also address a problem with an element of the Bill as it relates to the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government obviously believe that their amendment, by providing for a different type of appeal, would make the Bill comply with that Act. I will discuss that in due course. However, the Bill unamended does not contain an appeal process, so it would certainly fall foul of article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which deals with the right to a fair trial.

Frank Field: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. Is it relevant for us to be discussing this? The Bill as amended would provide that a court hearing precedes the withholding of benefit. That is not comparable with the withholding of a social security payment, which is done on the say-so of an officer. The Bill also provides that the penalty cannot take effect if the person then makes an appeal. As there is to be an
 appeals process, I do not know why we are discussing this matter.

Edward O'Hara: That is not a point of order but a point of debate, which can be made during the course of the Committee's discussions—and it has been.

Edward Davey: I will address that point shortly.
 The Secretary of State's power to withhold housing benefit is available only when a magistrates court has made two orders or convictions, but there should still be a right to appeal the Secretary of State's decision to exercise that power. That is important because of the potential consequences for a household of having housing benefit withdrawn. The amendment should be considered alongside those that we have previously discussed because it links in with them. Where a tenant has had their benefit withheld and it looks likely that they will lose their home and suffer severe hardship, they should be able to appeal.

George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. The hon. Gentleman is trying to steer the debate back on to territory that he has just left because he has nothing more to say on the subject. It is clear to me that the matters that he is now explaining were covered not only in our previous debate, which he has referred to, but at length earlier today. That being the case, I want to move closure.

Edward O'Hara: I am not ready at this point to accept a closure motion, but I am listening very carefully and looking at the Government's new clauses to see where they deal with points that are being made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. I ask him to take note of that.

Edward Davey: I do so, Mr. O'Hara.
 New clause 3, which is on page 1170 of the amendment paper, is the Government's new clause that is relevant to my argument. That new clause—in particular, subsections (7), (8) and (9)—makes provision for an appeal. That is welcome, but we should debate the comparison between my approach, whereby the appeal would go through the social security system, as is the case in other aspects of the benefits system, including benefits sanctions, with the Government's totally novel approach. The approach that they are suggesting with respect to benefit sanctions and the benefits system has not been adopted before. 
 We are addressing an important point of principle. I am sorry if some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen think that it is not a new point. I do not think that we have debated it at all. It is a point of great substance, because it would completely change the way in which appeals against benefit decisions are made. We must debate whether we want a benefits appeal system that is administratively based, or one that is based on judicial process.

Malcolm Wicks: I regret the way in which our colleague is monopolising the time. It means that there is no chance for a cut-and-thrust debate, but that is for him to decide.
 There will be full rights of appeal. The appeal against a court declaration will be made through the courts in the same way as an appeal against the initial conviction or the court order. An appeal will also be possible under the benefits system, relating to how the sanction has been applied, but not to the underlying reason for it.

Edward O'Hara: I thank the Minister for that explanation. That is precisely what I was reading in the Government's new clauses when the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East raised the point of order. I ask the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to note that. I feel that there is little scope for further debate on that point.

Edward Davey: I might be able to convince you if I respond to the Minister's comments, Mr. O'Hara. He said that subsections (7), (8) and (9) allow a judicial approach to an appeals system. I understand that that is a completely new way of going about that.

George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has no intention of taking your advice. I want to move that the question be now put.

Edward O'Hara: I shall give the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton one more opportunity, as he has more amendments to speak to. I have been anxious not to accept a closure motion in order to give him the opportunity to speak to his other amendments in the group, but I appeal to him to take that opportunity.

Edward Davey: Mr. O'Hara, my argument in reply to the Minister relates to the distinction between an appeal process that is administratively based and one that is judicially based, and whether that is a matter of substance. We have not had that debate. I realise that I have been speaking for a long time—

Edward O'Hara: Order. The point being made by other members of the Committee is that the hon. Gentleman is not giving the opportunity for wider debate on the matter. I repeat my counsel to him: I have refused to accept two or three attempts to move closure as I am anxious for him to have the opportunity to speak to all his amendments in the group. We have been making progress, and I ask him to take the opportunity to speak to his other amendments.

Edward Davey: I shall certainly do that. I shall speak later to new clause 3(7), (8) and (9). I believe that it would be in order—I will be delighted if you comment on that, Mr. O'Hara—for me to deal with those subsections, as they relate to the appeals process, while I debate amendment No. 22. I am trying not to waste time but to take part of the debate—

James Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. The hon. Gentleman has been drinking in the last chance saloon for long enough. We were talking about new clause 3(7), (8) and (9) five minutes ago. The matter has been explained to the hon. Gentleman, who moved off and returned to it. We are going up and down like a yo-yo.
Mr. Clappison rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
 Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to..

James Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. If I have understood the procedure correctly, we may now press individual amendments to a Division. Am I correct?

Edward O'Hara: I was about to put amendment No. 1 to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he intended to withdraw it, but did not do so for the sake of ease of progress. He is free to withdraw it at this stage.

James Clappison: I will do so. Without prejudice to later amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Edward Davey: No.
 Amendment negatived. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 1, line 3, after 'individual', insert 'permanently'.—[Mr. Edward Davey.] 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived.

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. When the Committee holds a Division and it is clear that only one voice is either in favour of a proposition or against it, do you have the ability to weigh the voices rather than hold a recorded vote, especially when you come to the view that the one hon. Member is obstructing the business of the Committee?

Edward O'Hara: The Speaker or Deputy Speaker in the Chamber may have such a power, but a Committee Chairman does not. If there are dissonant voices, I must press the matter to a Division.
 Amendment proposed: No. 12, in page 1, line 5, after second 'tenant', insert 
'and reasonable attempts to offer support and resettlement services have been refused'.—[Mr. Edward Davey.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed, No. 13, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.—[Mr. Edward Davey.] 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed, No. 18, in page 1, line 9, after 'means', insert 'a pattern of consistent'.—[Mr. Edward Davey.] 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed, No. 23, in page 1, line 10, at end add 
'and which in the opinion of the Secretary of State cannot better be dealt with in any other way than that specified in this Act'.—[Mr. Edward Davey.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed, No. 21, in page 1, line 10, at end add— 
'(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) the Secretary of State may only withhold any payment of housing benefit if he is satisfied that exceptional hardship will not result for the tenant or any person who resides with them.'.—[Mr. Edward Davey.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 1 disagreed to.

Clause 2 - Withholding of housing benefit: landlords

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 14—Consultation with landlords—
'( ) Before taking any action under section 2 above the Secretary of State shall consult with such organisations as in his view represent landlords in order to take into account any views expressed by them as to how any such action can be taken in such a way as to lessen any hardship caused to landlords.'.

Frank Field: I will obviously wish clause 2 to be withdrawn when the time comes. As we heard from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton this morning how valuable it would be to involve landlords in the process, I conclude that we have already heard the debate on new clause 14. May I move to a vote?

Edward O'Hara: That is a matter for the Committee rather than the Chair. I put the question that clause 2 stand part of the Bill, which is debatable.

Edward Davey: I wish to speak to new clause 14. I will put forward different arguments to those I used earlier. I did not mention the representations that I had received from landlords who are extremely concerned about this legislation. I am not talking about any old landlord, but about the National Housing Federation, which I believe has written to many hon. Members.
 The NHF says that social landlords are especially concerned about the Bill. They would have to live with the consequences and they worry about the tenants that would face benefits sanctions and, more importantly, those who have to endure antisocial behaviour. They have a huge interest in the subject. Therefore, it is right that they should be consulted, as new clause 14 proposes.

Frank Field: I wrote to that body asking, ''Who did you consult before you wrote to me saying that you
 were going to try to sabotage this Bill?'' The reply was, ''Nobody.'' Advice was taken from officers. That is how representative that body is.

Edward Davey: The federation is a body of landlords. Presumably, if the landlords who are members strongly disagreed, they would vote out the people who run the NHF. That would be the right and the proper way to do it. One presumes that, although they have not undertaken a survey or representative sample—

Frank Field: They did not take any.

Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but perhaps the federation understands its sector very well. It is a body of experts that talks to landlords and understands their needs. It would be odd if a body answerable to its members went in completely the opposite direction to them.
 I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but he not should dismiss the NHF out of hand. It represents the independent social housing sector. About 1,400 not-for-profit housing associations are members. Together, they own or manage about 1.8 million homes in England. I call that a sizeable institution. 
 The federation has expressed a range of concerns about how members would manage if the Bill were enacted. It wishes to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that its members have to work with vulnerable people whose behaviour poses a risk to the community and to themselves. The job involves promoting the safety of the wider community, but they feel that the Bill would jeopardise the work that they undertake. Through the automatic procedures that are proposed, they would lose control and would not be able to manage some of the problems with which they have to deal. By centralising the administration, which we will address in due course, this Bill will, in effect, enable the Secretary of State to micromanage this problem. As the Government are taking that approach, it makes even more sense that the Secretary of State should be under a duty to consult with landlords and the organisations that represent them. They can give the Secretary of State a grassroots response to how this legislation is operating in practice and their views need to be taken seriously. For the record—and to enlighten the right hon. Member for Birkenhead—I have not written to the NHF to ask whether it thinks that this new clause is sensible. However, its briefing, which he has obviously also received, suggests that it would like to be consulted. 
 The NHF believes that the threat of the withdrawal of housing benefit would deter reputable private landlords from renting to anyone who is receiving welfare benefits. I know that from what has happened in my constituency. For its sins, Kingston took on a wonderful private sector company called EDS to administrate its housing and council tax benefits. I was aware of the consequences of its mismanagement of housing benefit because many people who were affected sought my help in dealing with this appalling private contractor. One of the damaging long-term effects of the company's mismanagement was that 
 landlords were put off from renting to people on housing benefit, because the administration was so slow and poor and the landlords were not receiving the housing benefit for their social tenants. Although Kingston got rid of EDS about two years ago, some very vulnerable people, who need to rent in the private sector and who would be eligible for housing benefit, are still feeling the effects of its mismanagement because private landlords will not accept them. 
 In Kingston, there was a reduction in the number of private sector landlords as a result of that poor administration of housing benefit, which backs up the NHF's argument that it should at least be involved in this process so that it can point out the pitfalls and the problems.

Frank Field: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. What relevance does this have to the clause? We hear about a crap company such as EDS affecting everybody; we are talking about a specific, targeted and very small group of families.

Edward O'Hara: I was asking myself the same question and I ask the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to focus his attention on that question. Is the current content of his contribution relevant to the Committee's business and especially this new clause?

Edward Davey: I wanted to come back to the text of the new clause, to show the relevance of what I am saying. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Birkenhead says from a sedentary position that I should have gone to the text of the clause in the first place. I was coming to that, but then he made his point of order.

Edward O'Hara: Order. Therefore, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman comes to that matter forthwith.

Edward Davey: The new clause says
'the Secretary of State shall consult with such organisations as in his view represent landlords in order to take into account any views expressed by them as to how any such action can be taken in such a way as to lessen any hardship caused to landlords.'.
 That is why I am referring to concerns expressed by organisations that represent landlords. I am expressing their concerns to give a flavour of what might happen if the new clause were accepted and that is pertinent. 
 I have touched on a concern that the Bill would deter reputable private landlords from renting to any person in receipt of welfare benefit, but I shall move on to a further worry. The federation's members say that households to whom local authorities do not owe a duty of secure accommodation might find themselves sleeping rough because they would be effectively barred from renting accommodation. They are worried because they want the communities for which they provide housing to be manageable and safe.

Edward O'Hara: Order. We are, once again, treading on territory that has been trodden several times before.

Edward Davey: I am talking about the concerns of members of an organisation that represents landlords. I think that they would need to be heard if new clause 14 were agreed. I am trying to explain—

Edward O'Hara: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to draw a distinction between what the landlords are
 concerned with and detailed discussion of that matter, which has been discussed umpteen times.

Edward Davey: Let me list the organisation's concerns, if you would find that more acceptable, Mr. O'Hara. First, resting the power to withhold housing benefit with the Secretary of State is administratively cumbersome and will not allow the flexibility that is needed to deal with complex family problems. Secondly, withholding housing benefit is likely to increase evictions for non-payment of rent. Thirdly, if an evicted household contains a person who has a right to be rehoused under homeless legislation, such as a minor, a local authority might have to pay for temporary accommodation but be unable to secure permanent rehousing. We have not debated that issue, but I am listing it because of your strictures, Mr. O'Hara. Fourthly, the organisation understands that people who become homeless as a consequence of the Bill will be classified as intentionally homeless. They do not want children to be taken into care simply to punish their parents.

Malcolm Wicks: If I ever get the opportunity, I will explain to the Committee why such a new clause is not appropriate. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the right hon. Member for Birkenhead got the chance to speak this afternoon, he might explain that the clause is about private tenants rather than housing association tenants? I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there is a difference between a monologue and a democratic discussion.

Edward Davey: I could engage in a debate on that point—

Edward O'Hara: Order. I strongly advise the hon. Gentleman not to.

Edward Davey: I am sure that the Minister will have plenty of time to answer. As you said at the beginning of the sitting, Mr. O'Hara, we may sit until any hour. The Minister is bound to have the opportunity to reply.
 At your suggestion, Mr. O'Hara, I was listing concerns that landlords have expressed and would be likely to express. I referred to the concerns of the National Housing Federation, and I would like to mention worries that I have heard from the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, which is a national membership body in Scotland for individuals and organisation that work to tackle homelessness. Its members include housing associations, voluntary organisations and individual landlords. The Secretary of State would be likely to consult with such bodies and people if new clause 14 were accepted. I shall not list all of the organisation's many worries—hon. Members would have received a letter from it at the beginning of June. It believes that, for reasons of principle and practicality, the Bill will not have the intended effect. That shows why the new clause is so important. The people involved house people who behave in such a way, and are aware of all the other measures that we discussed at length and know how to use them. 
 I am trying to persuade the Committee that such landlords and representative organisations of landlords are exactly the people with whom the 
 Secretary of State needs to be in regular contact to make the Bill work and his new clauses effective.

James Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. How many times must we hear from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that the Secretary of State needs to consult? We have heard the same form of words about half a dozen times.

Edward O'Hara: In this case, it comes in the context of consultation with landlords. I trust that we are reaching the conclusion of the argument of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton on that point.

Edward Davey: I appreciate that the amendment is tight and focuses on landlords. One reason why I thought that this was an appropriate moment to raise the matter was that other hon. Members suggested that that group of people are sometimes not involved in discussions.
 Many of the examples that I have given relate to partnership with landlords, both social and private. The new clause would embed that partnership and ensure that landlords are involved in the development of other measures designed to tackle antisocial behaviour and linked to the housing benefit sanction. 
 I learn more about the housing benefit system and how it works from speaking to landlords in my constituency than from speaking to any other group of people—including even tenants. As I am sure hon. Members are aware, tenants often do not understand the complexities of the system because it is such a minefield. Landlords, however, because their cash flow is involved, are extremely aware of those complexities. They drew to my attention several problems in our housing benefit system. They face a huge number of changes in regulations that affect the system.

Edward O'Hara: Order. I do rule that out of order.

Edward Davey: I was about to try to make that comment relevant and say that, as the Bill unfolds, such people will need to be consulted to ensure that some of the mistakes that have been made in the past do not recur.
 The Government new clauses, which, although we will vote on them later, seem likely to be agreed, give the Secretary of State power to make regulations to prescribe how housing benefit will be withheld. As the law will develop over a period of months and will, no doubt, like other aspects of the housing benefit administration system, have to be continually tweaked, such people will need to be consulted. If they are not, they will withdraw their services from people on benefits, which would result in increased homelessness and hardship. 
 The amendment would help the Government. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response and whether he will consult. His argument may be that he will do so anyway, so the amendment is not necessary, but if we believe that that is necessary, it should be specified in the Bill. 
 When replying to the debate, I hope that the Minister will assure the Committee that he has already had discussions with landlords prior to drafting the new clauses. It would help me to know which landlord organisations he consulted—I hope that it was a representative sample.

Edward O'Hara: Order. The hon. Gentleman will notice from my body language that I consider that he has fully expanded his arguments about the new clause. I do not want him to advance them with further words.

Edward Davey: I am drawing my remarks to a close, Mr. O'Hara, something about which I am sure that you and members of the Committee will be happy. I hope that the Minister will give us a detailed response to the debate and assure us that he will either accept the amendment or the spirit in which it was drafted. I am sure that all members of Committee will welcome such an assurance.

Frank Field: I hope that the Minister will confirm what has always been his approach, which is that he is always willing to listen to people who wish to enter into conversation with him, but less keen on people who lecture him at great length on various matters. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton cited one social housing group as though it had come down from Mount Sinai with the view of its members about the Bill. I wrote to the group; it had not consulted its members. It relied on experts. I was disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman, who usually argues that we must take action from the grass roots upwards, supporting an organisation that was imposing a will from the top and not consulting people. When the Minister and the Secretary of State debate the Bill on Report, I hope that they will be consulting widely as they have done in the past.
 We have received several representations. I shall not go into that matter now; I will save it for the Floor of the House. However, I do not believe that the organisations that have lined up to attack the Bill have asked their members whether they share that view. The Guardian printed a letter today from two organisations that have honourably spoken on behalf of older people and which are worried about the measure. Apart from one single mother who has enormous courage, the only people who are willing to appear in the courts in Birkenhead to get something done about antisocial behaviour are pensioners. I doubt very much whether those organisations have asked the views of even one pensioner.

Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman said that organisations, in particular the National Housing Federation, have not been consulting. Did he consult widely with landlords when preparing the Bill? Does it mirror their specific views? Has he met any landlords who are against the Bill, or are they all in favour of it?

Frank Field: Obviously, I must not take interventions, because there is a certain structure to what I want to say, and I will cover such points.
 After I received the letter that the hon. Gentleman received, I consulted—unlike him—the association that deals with the largest group of social housing in my constituency. It is probably one of the largest in the 
 country. The association said that, provided that we adopted the Liberal Democrat policy of establishing sin bins, it would have no worries with the measures under the Bill. It was not talking about policy officers writing papers to lobby MPs, some of them misusing public money in doing so. I shall return to that when I get to the Floor of the House—if people want to involve themselves in politics, they must expect a proper fight.

James Clappison: In the course of the right hon. Gentleman's experiences, has he, like me, come across landlords who are as concerned as their tenants about the misbehaviour of other tenants who are antisocial, who make it difficult for good landlords to find good tenants, and who have a bad effect on a neighbourhood and thus drive down the value of properties?

Frank Field: I have indeed, as have almost all other members of the Committee. I have not received any representations from those landlords—those vagabonds—who buy up houses as cheaply as possible, shove in people on housing benefit, and happily witness the collapse of decent working class communities because of their failure to act as proper landlords. I was therefore pleased when my hon. Friend the Minister told me that they could not support the clause because of the European convention on human rights, but would put proposals before the House that would deal with those rogue landlords. I emphasise that most landlords in my constituency and, I suppose, elsewhere, are decent people who are as appalled by this behaviour as are pensioners in my constituency who seem to be so misrepresented by their national organisation in The Guardian today. When we vote, I will ask hon. Members not to agree that the clause stand part. I will also ask them to reject new clause 14, as all of us would support the last plea made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that the Minister should consult widely when he moves to regulations.

Malcolm Wicks: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead was speaking, I reflected that the Committee was trying to discuss several substantive issues that his Bill raises. Some of them are difficult, and the Committee wanted to discuss them more fully. At the beginning, I mentioned that I recognise that we stand in the middle of the road on the Bill and are vulnerable to attack from those who think that we are not being strong enough. I tried to explain the reasons for our position. We also appear vulnerable—although I do not feel so vulnerable—to those who think that we are being too hard. However, I very much regret that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton chose to adopt that approach, as it has meant that we have not had a proper debate.
 We could not properly discuss some of the difficult issues that I needed to confront. He referred to the fact that Surbiton was the scene for, ''The Good Life'', which some of us still remember with affection. In that programme, the characters occasionally dug a hole to plant plants and vegetables, but they never made the mistake of being in the hole and not stopping digging. He kept digging a hole and lost the Committee with some of his arguments. Some of them deserved proper 
 discussion, but the manner of his approach has prevented that. 
 The hon. Gentleman missed the point when he talked about landlords, as my right hon. Friend is concerned about the behaviour of private landlords in particular, not those in the social landlord sector. That point about rationality would be of no interest to one member of the Committee. 
 The Government amendments do not include any equivalent of the clause, because it could prove to be unfair in practice. After all, housing benefit is an entitlement of the tenant, not the landlord. In practice, therefore, denying benefit to the landlord for a given property would mean denying benefit to any tenant who happened to live there. If the antisocial tenant moved out and a wholly innocent family took over the tenancy, it would clearly be unfair to restrict its entitlement to housing benefit. We also have concerns about the possible effect that the clause might have on the market by making private landlords less willing to let to housing benefit claimants. 
 The Government are aware of the problems that irresponsible landlords can cause. Some areas—in particular, those where there is low housing demand—have attracted unscrupulous, even criminal, landlords and antisocial tenants, some of whom have been excluded from social housing. These people can cause misery to the local community, and often cause further decline by forcing out law-abiding landlords, tenants and owner-occupiers. 
 People who are concerned about children and homelessness make representations, but they seem to have no understanding of the situation of law-abiding tenants who have been forced out and become homeless. Those tenants might have to sleep on their friends' floors. Their children might have been unable to go to the local school, which would disrupt their education. All of that would have happened because of the behaviour of people whose rights we have heard a lot about, but whose responsibilities need to be emphasised today. Some Committee members seem to have no understanding of that aspect of hardship and child neglect, which is caused by the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. 
 I can illustrate that point by referring to a case in my constituency: a woman and her children were driven out of their home because of the thuggishness of her neighbours, which caused them great hardship. That sort of behaviour can also lead to the decline of a community. I look forward to receiving representations about that from bodies that are concerned with children's welfare and homelessness. They have neglected to do so until now, but I would welcome their evidence. 
 Tackling the spiral of decline in such areas is a huge and complex task. Last year, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—as it was then called—consulted on proposals for the limited licensing of private landlords, as an additional way of controlling the problem. 
 However, it is important to emphasise that the vast majority of private landlords are law-abiding, which is one reason why we need to get this right. There is huge pressure on housing in many parts of the country. The Government see the private rented sector as an important way to reduce those pressures. Therefore, we want to encourage landlords and help to improve quality and standards where necessary. The proposals that we are developing are a more appropriate way of tackling problems where they exist than the possibly rather punitive approach that is suggested by clause 2. 
 I hope that, having emphasised our need to take action in future on housing policy, Committee members will decide not to retain this clause. 
 Question put and negatived
Clause 2 disagreed to.Clause 3Short title, commencement and extent

Clause 3 - Short title, commencement and extent

Mr. Davey: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 1, line 22, after first 'shall', insert,
'subject to section [anti-social behaviour commission] above.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 16—Anti-social behaviour commission—
'(1) No action shall be taken under this Act until the Secretary of State has set up an anti-social behaviour commission whose function shall be to investigate anti-social behaviour by tenants and to report to him and make recommendations.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to have regard to any recommendations made by the Commission.'.
Mr. Davey: I am especially keen to move new clause 16, because it is more substantive than the amendment. It proposes the establishment of an antisocial behaviour commission. I am not normally an advocate of quangos. In general, I am in favour of getting rid of as many of them as possible. Therefore, I have a slightly heavy heart as I propose to set up another one, but it is necessary because I have concerns about this matter.
New clause 16 would ensure that the Secretary of State was unable to take any action under the Bill until the commission had been set up and had reported on antisocial behaviour and made recommendations to the Secretary of State. It also makes an important second provision:
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to have regard to any recommendations made by the Commission.'.
I envisage that the commission would ensure that any further movement down this road would be made on the basis of evidence. That is a key point in my argument and in one of our debates this morning. There is a danger that the Government are acting too hastily. They have not seen the evidence of the effect of benefits sanctions, and until they have done so and can say that those sanctions will not result in the destitution that we talked about, they will not have won the argument. The antisocial behaviour commission would have the core function of undertaking research to make recommendations.
In many ways, the Government should welcome the measure because it is in line with what they are doing. They are consulting and might find that this approach, which would further develop that consultation, would help. I stress that it would not stop them continuing with the consultation on attacking antisocial tenants that was published by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. It would not stop them from pushing forward such measures—Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Birkenhead says from a sedentary position, ''Of course it would.''
Mr. Field: No, I said that it would not. It is clear what the hon. Gentleman wants from his new clause. I would not prevent those other measures taking place. We have done him the courtesy of reading his amendment.
Mr. Davey: I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has read the amendment and he can back up what I am saying. I made that point in case anyone was worried that the commission would stop real action being taken against antisocial behaviour. It would not. It would only prevent a very narrow approach being taken. The Government should not go ahead with this one tool, which the Minister himself said was only a small part of their armoury, until they have further evidence. That is a sensible way to proceed.
It is not unusual for the Government to set up commissions to obtain evidence to back up future policies. We have the Low Pay Commission, which discussed the introduction of the national minimum wage. It proved to be very effective and has subsequently reported back to the Government. The Government have adopted the same approach in other areas of social policy. It has worked exceedingly well before and is likely to do so again.
I have referred to the other consultations and work that has been done. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I will not go over that ground again. One piece of research evidence should be taken forward, however, and I am sure that the antisocial behaviour commission would do so. It relates to the Government's approach of tying housing benefit sanctions to convictions, which would lead to offenders serving time in prison in some cases.
''Reducing Re-offending by Ex-prisoners'' was published this month by the social exclusion unit. The Government have done a lot of work on it and I welcome the research, which would be key to the work of the antisocial behaviour commission. It shows that poor housing, the lack of housing and homelessness are key factors in influencing reoffending rates. Released prisoners commit a huge amount of crime—at least 1 million crimes per year, or 18 per cent. of recorded notifiable crime. Dealing with the issue would help to tackle much of the antisocial behaviour that we are worried about. We should ensure that the housing of offenders is sufficient to prevent them reoffending.
That research would be germane to the work of the commission. It would have to be—[Interruption.] I am not sure if it was the Minister or the right hon. Member for Birkenhead who asked, ''How?'' The 
research that would be undertaken would examine the specific provisions in the Bill, namely, linking the housing benefit sanction to a conviction. Imagine that a convicted prisoner is released after serving a sentence of less than 12 months, is subject to the housing benefit sanction, and thus becomes homeless. In those circumstances, the chances of that prisoner reoffending are much greater, according to all the research that the Government have recently published. That seems odd, which is why we must be less hasty and why the new clause is important. It would ensure that the research published by the Government this month could be taken into account and that we could have the joined-up government that we hear so much about. We could ensure that people released from prison, who would be hit by the housing benefit sanction, did not reoffend.
Mr. Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I have re-read the new clause to which the hon. Gentleman is speaking carefully and I think that he is straying rather wide of it.
The Chairman: I suppose that that is a point of order; it is for the Chair to decide. I am listening carefully for a distinction in the arguments of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton between the reoffending that might take place, which is not relevant to the debate, and how the commission would assist in analysing and more generally. He should be referring to the commission and what it would do, not to behaviours, which have been discussed many times before.
Mr. Davey: I am grateful for that advice, Mr. O'Hara. The commission would take evidence that was already available, consider it in respect of the housing benefit sanction and decide whether that was the right approach. It would work out whether such sanctions would result overall in a reduction in antisocial behaviour. The commission would need to do that, because by tying the housing benefit sanction to a conviction, one is targeting it on offenders. Presumably, they will suffer the sanction when they are released from prison. As a result, they will have problems getting stable accommodation and a plethora of evidence suggests that that will make them reoffend.
Mr. Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. You have been very fair, if I may say so, in giving the hon. Gentleman latitude for debate, but he seems to have ignored your strictures completely. He has returned to the subject of reoffending and behaviour—he never even got to what the commission would do.
The Chairman: Order. I was about to make exactly that point. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is not observing the distinction that I asked him to. With the new clause, we are concerned only with what the commission would do.
Mr. Davey: The commission would have to look into the workings of, for example, the 13-week rule that applies to prisoners in respect of housing benefit. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead has suggested that prisoners do not receive housing benefit; he forgets the 13-week rule.
Mr. Field: We are discussing a new clause that would set up an independent commission. What business is it of the Committee to decide what the commission would or would not do? It would not be a tool of the Committee or anyone else.
The Chairman: Order. I repeat that I wish and expect to hear about the role and value of the commission, not about behaviours and reoffending, which we have discussed many times before.
Mr. Davey: I hope that the commission would be made up of a range of specialists in understanding the people who would be affected by the legislation. It should have members from organisations such as the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, landlords' organisations and, in particular, those who could assist in research. I have talked about those involved with resettling offenders and one can imagine many other types of people who would be appropriate members of the commission. Examples are people from local authorities who administer housing benefit and representatives of homeless charities. They have been debated and disparaged by a few hon. Members, but I believe that they would play a valuable role as members of an antisocial behaviour commission. I am not sure how long a commission would need for an investigation, so I deliberately did not set a timetable. That would be too prescriptive, but it would clearly want to report as soon as possible to make recommendations.
I am sure that a commission, as it went about its work, would read the reports to which we have referred. I would expect it to take notice of the consultation paper on tackling antisocial behaviour in tenants. I would also strongly recommend to hon. Members and any future commission members a text by Caroline Hunter, Judy Nixon and Sigrid Shayer called, ''Neighbour nuisance, social landlords and the law''. I found it exceedingly useful for understanding the current processes and how the proposals would affect them.
I do not want to prejudge any outcomes, but commission members would want to understand such analysis because they would be worried about whether the Bill would reduce antisocial behaviour. That is my main concern and the antisocial behaviour commission would be the best place to make such a fine judgment. That is the subject of the debate: whether benefit sanctions will reduce or increase antisocial behaviour.
Mr. Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. We have been through this before. I would like to move that the Question be now put.
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is being a little premature. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is entitled to refer to that point, but not develop it yet again. I remind Committee members that when the Chairman has advised the speaker on several occasions of the need to make progress, he has the power to order the Member to finish his speech if that advice is not taken.
Mr. Davey: I was coming to the tasks that an antisocial behaviour commission would undertake and referring to the research of which it could take note. I imagine that it would commission new research, focusing particularly on the concern at hand.
Mr. Field: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. There is nothing in the clause that we are discussing that asks the commission to do that. The clause says that it should investigate antisocial behaviour; there is nothing to do with monitoring the Act. When the hon. Gentleman has been in order, his contribution has been literature on criminal activity.
The Chairman: I hear that point of order and once again advise the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that he is not further developing his argument. With my guidance, he has concentrated on the particular point of the new clause, but he is not advancing the argument much further. I ask him to heed my advice.
Mr. Davey: I will try to do so and I am trying to stick to the point on the work that a commission would do. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead was listening because I am talking about how it would investigate antisocial behaviour by tenants. I hope that such investigations would include hearings and evidence from the victims of antisocial behaviour. That would be proper and important. The Minister accused me of not referring to victims. In my previous remarks, I have referred to them and I hope—we all take the matter so seriously—that the antisocial behaviour commission would do the same. Victims should be at the forefront of the commissioners' minds as they set about their work. The commission should exist to carry out investigations to ensure that we have the right laws—and put the right recommendations to the Minister—to tackle antisocial behaviour for the benefit of victims.
Mr. Field: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. The hon. Gentleman has made two contributions. The first is that he wants the ideas monitored before the provisions come into effect, but the new clause does not cover that. Secondly, he tells us that the commission should talk to the victims, but again the new clause makes no reference to it. If it is so important and the hon. Gentleman drew up the new clause, why is it not there?
The Chairman: The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is once again taxing my patience. I have heard no further development of the argument to establish a commission and make the Government take heed of its recommendations. If the hon. Gentleman says anything further, he must refer to that argument and he must not repeat points that he has already made in his contribution.
Mr. Davey: I apologise if I am trying your patience, Mr. O'Hara, by not sticking to the main point. I hoped that I was. The main argument for establishing an antisocial behaviour commission is to provide more information to the Government before they go down the route that they want to follow.
The Chairman: Order. That point has already been made.
Mr. Davey: I was making that general point and wanted to go on to talk about the sort of information that would be appropriate. I can see that I am trying your patience, Mr. O'Hara. On the basis of what you said, I shall be forced to close my remarks if I do not do so of my own accord. I acknowledge your experience in chairing Committees and I do not want to try your patience. I hope that you understand the spirit of my concluding remarks. I am sitting down so that we can continue and I no longer try your patience.
Mr. Field: I am relieved to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. He is one of the most intelligent Members of Parliament, but he would never have passed his exams if his answers mirrored his approach to new clause 16 or, indeed, his previous contributions to the debate.
The Bill makes a new beginning. Previous sanctions were about trying to get people to perform well for themselves, but we are now moving toward taking sanctions against people whose behaviour is making life impossible for others. I will be surprised if the Minister accepts the amendment, though it has a kernel of an idea—that the Government should consult widely on the causes of antisocial behaviour. Clearly, the Government have monitored changes in other respects and they will monitor changes in this case, too. The Government have a good track record on consulting and monitoring, so I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will withdraw the amendment.
Malcolm Wicks: I can be brief. The Government have researched problems of antisocial behaviour and Members of Parliament know about the problems that their constituents face. In 2000, the social exclusion unit published a comprehensive report on antisocial behaviour and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently consulted on the problems of antisocial tenants. We do not believe that a new commission would add greatly to what we already know. Our constituents want quick action, not a slow Lib-Dem quango around the houses.
Mr. Davey: As the Minister would not allow me to intervene on him—I have always allowed him to intervene on me—I must say how disappointed I am with that answer. Neither the consultation document that has been discussed many times nor the social exclusion report mentioned the proposal that is before us, although they contain all the measures that I have been talking about. All those people who did the research and the study and collected the evidence, which is exactly what I would hope the antisocial behaviour commission would do, had different recommendations. They did not make this recommendation at all. It is a great shame that the Minister will not accept the amendment because it would force him to go back to the sort of work that has been done, which has clearly come up with different solutions and it would help to tackle the problem with a properly targeted approach.
Question put, That the amendment be made:— 
 The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 23, at end insert—
'(2A) An order under subsection (2) may make— 
 (a) different provision for different purposes or different areas, and 
 (b) such supplementary and incidental provision as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.'

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 4, at end add:
'provided that an instrument containing provisions under paragraph (b) above shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.

Malcolm Wicks: The amendment is purely technical and concerns the commencement order that would be used to bring the Bill into force. I commend it to the Committee.

Edward Davey: The Minister was modest in describing this as a technical amendment. Allowing the Minister to make different provisions for different purposes or different areas would seem to be quite a substantive power. I do not know whether he will be able to tell the Committee whether that is taken from other social security legislation and whether it is usual within housing benefit administration law to enable such different positions to be taken. Does it mean that different approaches could be taken in different regions so that the higher housing costs of London, for example, could be taken into account in the various regulations? When the Government announce the coming into effect of the Act will they understand that we have specific problems in the capital?

Andrew Selous: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I do not believe that a discussion on regional variations is relevant to amendment (a).

Edward O'Hara: I must allow the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to continue a little longer before being convinced that he is out of order.

Edward Davey: I am not necessarily suggesting that such matters would be on a regional basis. I accept that I gave such an example, but I imagine that the Government would take a different approach. Local rent officers do not operate on a regional basis. They play a full part in the way in which housing benefit is assessed and administered. The Government may want to talk about the areas in which the rent officers operate. I do not want the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) to be under any illusion that I am suggesting that the measure could be used for regional variation; it is my understanding that
 it could be used for different areas.
The Chairman indicated assent.

Edward Davey: I am grateful for that confirmation, Mr. O'Hara. I thought that the Minister was being modest when he suggested that the proposal was a technical amendment. It would give significant powers for variation. I do not know when the House will be able to consider those differences, which is why I tabled amendment (a). It would give Parliament the chance for such a debate. I hope that the Minister will either accept the amendment or come back on Report with an alternative that is better drafted. I confess that some of my amendments were drafted in the early hours and may not be as accurate as they should be.
 I fear that I shall not be able to detain the Committee for as long as I want to on the amendment. Not much more can be said about it and that is a great shame. [Interruption.] Members of the Committee seem to be suggesting that other things could be said about it. However, given the way in which the past two hours have gone, I am beginning to think that some of my efforts have been in vain. I hope that, at least, they pressed for more scrutiny of the Bill. I know that the Minister thinks my amendments have not done that, but I assure him that the Bill's provisions will receive more scrutiny than we have been able to give them today, which, incidentally, was not my fault.

Calum MacDonald: I declare an interest in that I also have tenants. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton asked a reasonable question. At our previous sitting, I said that the legislation on antisocial behaviour in Scotland differs significantly from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. For example, under section 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, anyone who is evicted for rent arrears in Scotland must automatically be rehoused by the local authority. We hope that the Bill will become law. If people are caught up in its operations and lose their homes as a result of falling behind in the payment of their rent because of the lack of housing benefit, some unintended consequences may result in the Scottish context. People will have to be rehoused by the local authority. The punitive effect, or the deterrent effect, would not apply in the way that is intended. The local authority, rather than the Department for Work and Pensions, would pick up the bill.
 That example illustrates the need to ensure that the way in which we apply the Bill, if it becomes law, is sensitive to different needs and situations in different parts of the United Kingdom. The Government amendment captures that requirement, and I would be grateful if the Minister addressed that point.

Malcolm Wicks: I repeat that the amendment, which is purely technical, relates to the commencement order. It might help if I tell the Committee that it technically allows the Bill to be introduced at different times in different parts of the country. That is in line with standard regulation-making powers for housing benefit, which enable different provisions to be made for different areas if
 that is sensible. If the Bill becomes law with the Government's amendments, it would be sensible to roll it out at the same time throughout Great Britain.
 I turn to the question of Scotland. I do not believe for one minute that there can be antisocial behaviour of any kind in the beautiful Western Isles, given its wonderful environment, but I should say that housing benefit is reserved for Westminster, as are all social security benefits. Our starting point is that any benefit measure must be applied throughout Great Britain. 
 The Bill's objectives clearly coincide with devolved responsibilities for housing policy and criminal justice. We have worked closely with our colleagues in the Scottish Executive to ensure that our approach on the Bill meshes with their strategy on antisocial behaviour, and I have had two conversations with the appropriate Minister. I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead that we will continue to liaise closely when making regulations. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment: (a), in line 4, at end add
'provided that an instrument containing provisions under paragraph (b) above shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Davey.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 3 - Anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings

'(1) This section applies where— 
 (a) on any occasion a person (''the offender'') is convicted of one or more offences by or before a court, but 
 (b) a custodial sentence of a year or more is not imposed on the offender in respect of the conviction, or any of the convictions. 
 (2) If it appears to the prosecutor that, by reason of any or all of the conduct giving rise to the conviction or convictions, the offender may have behaved in an anti-social manner, the prosecutor must notify the court to that effect. 
 (3) Where— 
 (a) the court is notified under subsection (2), and 
 (b) it is satisfied that, by reason of any or all of the conduct giving rise to the conviction or convictions, the offender has behaved in an anti-social manner, 
 it must make a declaration that he has so behaved. 
 (4) A declaration under this section must specify the day on which the conduct in respect of which it is made occurred or, if that conduct occurred on more than one day, the earliest and latest days on which it occurred. 
 (5) For the purposes of this section, a person has behaved in an anti-social manner if his conduct caused, or was likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons (not of the same household as himself) residing in, visiting, or otherwise engaged in lawful activity in, the locality of his home. 
 (6) In this section— 
 (a) any reference to a conviction includes a conviction in relation to which a court makes an order for a conditional discharge (but not a conviction in relation to which a court makes an order for an absolute discharge), and 
 (b) ''custodial sentence''— 
 (i) in relation to England and Wales, has the meaning given in section 76 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c.6), and 
 (ii) in relation to Scotland, means a sentence as defined in section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.46). 
 (7) In section 50 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c.19) (meaning of ''sentence''), in subsection (1), after paragraph (h) insert ''; and 
 (i) a declaration under section (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings) of the Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment) Act 2002 (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings).'' 
 (8) In section 108 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43) (rights of appeal), at the end of subsection (3) insert ''and a declaration under section (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings) of the Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment) Act 2002 (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings).'' 
 For the purposes of any appeal or review, a declaration under this section made by a court in Scotland is a sentence.'.—[Malcolm Wicks.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Edward O'Hara: Having put the question that the clause be added to the Bill, I should tell the Committee that some amendments are to be called formally. The hon. Member for Hertsmere has suggested that he does not want to press one of them, but there are two amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. If he wants to press them to a Division, I must put the question forthwith.

James Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I should like it to be made absolutely clear whether we are still on new clause 3. When we reach new clause 5, we shall consider other amendments with similar designations, one of which I shall not press to a Division.

Edward O'Hara: We are negotiating a minefield. All will become clear. I must now put the question on the amendments that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton wants to press.

Edward Davey: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I believe that we have reached some amendments to which I did not speak—something that I am sure gave other hon. Members great pleasure. Would it be in order for me to table them on Report and speak to them then if I do not press them now?

Edward O'Hara: The hon. Gentleman may want not to press the amendments now but to reserve his position, in which case I shall not put the question on the amendments.New clause 4 Anti-social behaviour declarations: civil proceedings

New clause 4 - Anti-social behaviour declarations: civil proceedings

'(1) This section applies where— 
 (a) in England and Wales, the High Court, a county court or a magistrates' court, or 
 (b) in Scotland, the Court of Session or the sheriff, 
 makes a prescribed order in any civil proceedings, other than prescribed proceedings. 
 (2) Any prescribed party to the proceedings may apply to the court for a declaration that any other prescribed party has behaved in an anti-social manner by reason of any or all of the conduct in respect of which the order is made. 
 (3) If the court is satisfied on an application under subsection (2) that the person concerned has so behaved it must make a declaration accordingly. 
 (4) A declaration under this section must specify the day on which the conduct in respect of which it is made occurred or, if that conduct occurred on more than one day, the earliest and latest days on which it occurred. 
 (5) Subsection (5) of section (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.'.—[Mr. Wicks.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Frank Field: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. What is happening to amendments (a), (b) and (c) to new clause 4?

Edward O'Hara: They were amendments to new clause 3, and no one spoke to them. They were grouped with an earlier new clause.

Frank Field: Amendments (a), (b) and (c) relate to new clause 4, to which we have just agreed.

Edward O'Hara: Yes. We have gone beyond them.

New clause 5 - Withholding of benefit

'(1) Where a declaration is made under this Act in respect of a person, any housing benefit payable to him during the disqualification period shall be payable as if the rate of benefit were reduced in the prescribed manner. 
 (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in prescribed cases. 
 (3) Subsection (1) also does not apply to a declaration made in respect of a person (''declaration A'') where— 
 (a) another declaration made under this Act in respect of that person (''declaration B'') has been taken into account for the purposes of any previous application of that subsection, and 
 (b) any day which is a relevant day in relation to declaration A is also a relevant day in relation to declaration B. 
 (4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(b) ''relevant day'', in relation to a declaration under this Act, means— 
 (a) in a case where only one day is specified in the declaration under section (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings)(4) or (anti-social behaviour declarations: civil proceedings)(4), that day, and 
 (b) in any other case, the earliest and latest days so specified and any day between them. 
 (5) Where a declaration by virtue of which subsection (1) operates is quashed or set aside, all such payments and other adjustments shall be made as would be necessary if the declaration had not been made. 
 (6) Where, in the case of a declaration by virtue of which subsection (1) operates, the date or dates specified under section (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings)(4) or (anti-social behaviour declarations: civil proceedings)(4) are varied by a court (on appeal or otherwise), all such payments and other adjustments must be made as would be necessary if the declaration had been made as varied. 
 (7) In this section ''disqualification period'' means such period, not exceeding 52 weeks, as may be determined by or in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.—[Malcolm Wicks.]
 Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

James Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I am not moving amendment (a) to the new clause, but I should like to move amendment (b).

Edward O'Hara: I shall now put that to the Committee.
 Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (b), after second 'period,', insert 
'not less than 13 weeks and'.—[Mr. Clappison.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

New clause 6 - Administration

'(1) Where a court makes, quashes or sets aside a declaration under this Act, or varies the date or dates specified in such a declaration under section (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings)(4) or (anti-social behaviour declarations: civil proceedings)(4), it must notify the Secretary of State in the prescribed manner of— 
 (a) the fact that it has done so, and 
 (b) the prescribed information. 
 (2) The Secretary of State may make regulations about how information relating to declarations under this Act may be used and supplied (and may in particular authorise the supply of such information by any person to any other person). 
 (3) In section 170 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c.5) (functions of the Social Security Advisory Committee), in subsection (5), in the definition of ''the relevant enactments'', after paragraph (ag) insert— 
 ''(ah) the provisions of the Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment) Act 2002; and''.'.—[Malcolm Wicks.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Edward O'Hara: With this we may discuss the following: Government new clause 7—Regulations—
'(1) Subject to subsection (6), in this Act ''prescribed'' means prescribed, or of a description prescribed, by regulations made by the Secretary of State. 
 (2) Any power to make regulations under this Act is exercisable by statutory instrument. 
 (3) Subsections (4) to (7) of section 189 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c.5) (supplemental and incidental provision) apply in relation to the powers to make regulations conferred by this Act as they apply in relation to the powers to make regulations conferred by that Act. 
 (4) Subject to subsection (5), a statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. 
 (5) Subsection (4) does not apply in the case of an instrument containing regulations under section (administration) only. 
 Such an instrument is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. 
 (6) In the application of section (administration) in relation to any court in Scotland, ''prescribed'' means— 
 (a) in relation to declarations under section (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings), prescribed by the High Court of Justiciary by Act of Adjournal, and 
 (b) in relation to declarations under section (anti-social behaviour declarations: civil proceedings), prescribed by the Court of Session by Act of Sederunt. 
 (7) The power of the Court of Session by Act of Sederunt to regulate the procedure and practice in civil proceedings in the sheriff court includes power to regulate— 
 (a) the manner in which the court must notify the Secretary of State of the fact that it has made, quashed or set aside a declaration under this Act, or varied the date or dates specified in such a declaration under section (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings)(4) or (anti-social behaviour declarations: civil proceedings)(4), and 
 (b) the information which the court must give to the Secretary of State. 
 (8) Subsections (4) and (5) do not apply to Acts of Adjournal and Acts of Sederunt.'.
 And the following amendments thereto: (a), leave out subsection (5). 
 (b), at end add— 
'(9) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult— 
 (a) organisations representing tenants, 
 (b) organisations representing landlords, 
 (c) organisations representing persons living in fuel poverty, and 
 (d) other such persons as he deems appropriate.'.

Malcolm Wicks: Government new clauses 6 and 7 provide the framework for administering the sanction, and are largely technical. New clause 6 gives powers to require the courts to notify the Department for Work and Pensions of any declarations that they make about antisocial behaviour. It also provides for regulations to allow information to be shared—for example, between the Department for Work and Pensions and local authorities. Finally, it applies the normal requirement for social security legislation, to consult on regulations with the Social Security Advisory Committee.
 New clause 7 sets out how the regulations under the Bill would be used. The key point is that all those regulations, except technical ones about administration, would be subject to affirmative resolution procedure. That is in line with existing powers for benefit sanctions. It gives a guarantee of rigorous parliamentary scrutiny—although not necessarily long-winded scrutiny—of any regulations that are made in this potentially controversial area. 
 I commend both the new clauses to the Committee.

Edward Davey: I will try to be brief.

Austin Mitchell: Why break the habit of a lifetime?

Edward O'Hara: Order. Allow the hon. Gentleman to speak.

Edward Davey: Thank you, Mr. O'Hara.
 New clause 6 deals with the administration of this process. I think that when hon. Members read it they will be surprised, because it proposes an unusual way to administer housing benefits. It will link things back to the Secretary of State. It will be a very centralised system. 
 Unfortunately, we will not debate this at length now—although we might do so at a later stage. However, I am concerned that this administrative process will be complicated, and it will not work. It could be argued that I should be delighted that the Government are taking this approach, because it might prevent what I believe to be an unfair system from operating. However, we should do our jobs properly, so I suggest that the Minister explains why the Government have gone down this road of centralisation, and why local authorities are, effectively, being bypassed. My study of the notes leads me to believe that that is the intention. Who in the Minister's Department will do all of the tasks that are set out in new clause 6? 
 The Government might have learned to their cost that messing around too often with the administration of housing benefit creates problems at the local level, and they might not wish to add further problems to those that they have already created. However, between now and Report, the Government should 
 think about whether this really is the administrative route that they want to go down. I would also be interested to know whether the right hon. Member for Birkenhead considers it to be the most sensible route, because I think that there are problems with it.

Frank Field: As we are interested in debate, it would be relevant for us to hear what would be the Liberal Democrats' approach. All hon. Members have in their constituencies a few families who work under different identities, and we need a way of recording their movements around the country and between local authorities. The Government is offering a central register. My experience is that the staff at local offices of the Department for Work and Pensions will know the other names that such families operate under, and presumably they will provide that information centrally. However, what does the hon. Gentleman propose as an alternative?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for the chance to debate that point a little further. I accept that some of the people that we are talking about do not recognise the boundaries of local authorities, and that it would be necessary for local authorities to co-operate. However, I am not convinced that the best approach is for the Secretary of State to keep the register for the whole United Kingdom. There are arguments for keeping things local, even in this regard. The people in the local authority, who obviously have their own housing department and relationships with housing associations, are aware of those whom we are discussing. Perhaps it would be best if they held the register and shared it with neighbouring authorities.
 The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that our constituencies provide examples of people moving across boundaries, but whether they move across the country in the way that he suggests, and whether a central register is required, I am not so sure. Whether the whole system should be based on that, or whether there should be some additional element, but the main register kept locally, is the point of debate. There are genuinely two options. I wish that the Government had not taken their approach. 
 Section 170 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which new clause 6 will alter, concerns the social security advisory committee and the industrial injuries advisory council. Those bodies were set up to advise the Government. I am pleased with what the Government have done in that regard, because it ensures that other expert people may give them advice. Will that advice be published, so that we can see what those bodies think of the system and how it operates? Their published opinions would be welcome. 
 I hope that I am being brief, Mr. O'Hara, and that right hon. and hon. Members accept that. I shall move on to new clause 7.

Frank Field: Mr. O'Hara, does not the hon. Gentleman's improved behaviour just show what the effect of threatening sanctions can be?

Edward O'Hara: The Chair cannot comment on that.

Edward Davey: I did not feel that you were threatening me with sanctions, Mr. O'Hara. I thought that you simply made it clear that, if necessary, the Committee
 would sit beyond 7 pm and into the night. Indeed, you made that very clear at the beginning of this afternoon's proceedings. Much as I would like to speak for longer, because the provisions require that, I will not, given what you have said. I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members if they think that I have not yet run up the white flag. There is a job to be done, and I will do it, although probably with slightly fewer words than might have been my intention an hour or two ago.
 I have concerns about new clause 7, which is fundamental to the way in which the process will work. It relates to the whole Bill and talks about all the different ways in which regulations made under the Act will be developed. Let us consider the new clause to which it relates, which we have passed. New clause 4(1) refers to a ''prescribed order'' and ''prescribed proceedings''. Subsection (2) refers to a ''prescribed party''. 
 New clause 7 will give the prescriptions, and those details are fundamental. One worries about which orders will be involved in civil proceedings, which orders will be prescribed, and about the parties that will be prescribed. Who will be able to apply to the courts for declarations when the provision is enacted? 
 The Minister would be doing the Committee a service if he spelled out some of his initial thinking. Will someone affected by the antisocial behaviour be the prescribed party, and if so, how will that be defined? Or will it be a local authority, the police or the local social services authority? No doubt we will have that debate on another occasion, assuming that new clause 7 is accepted. 
 It would help us on Report if the Minister could give his initial thinking now, as some hon. Members may be concerned if he has it in mind to prescribe almost anyone who can take this action. That could result in a range of problems and false allegations clogging up the system. It is important that the regulations under new clause 7 are specific and carefully thought through. To know the Government's initial thinking would help me to decide whether I will support new clause 7. 
 I tabled two amendments to new clause 7. Amendment (a) would remove subsection (5), which says that where the regulations relate only to administrative issues, there need not be an instrument 
''subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''
 I regret that. I think that I am right, but the right hon. Member for Birkenhead wants to intervene. Have I made a mistake?

Frank Field: I thought that we were discussing new clauses 6 and 7, but the hon. Gentleman's amendments relate to administrative costs.

Edward Davey: No. That is the amendment to new clause 6. For the right hon. Gentleman's benefit, I am talking about amendment (a) to new clause 7, which is at the bottom of page 1175.

Edward O'Hara: Indeed. It was in the wrong place. New clause 7 and the amendment are grouped for debate with new clause 6.

Edward Davey: I understand that amendment (a) to new clause 6 was not selected, so I am not talking to it.
 Amendment (a) to new clause 7 would delete subsection (5). I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is now with us. As I said, many problems with the operation of housing benefit that would arise under the Bill come from administration. The House spends too little time considering administration. I know that we have plenty of other things to do, but the administration of housing benefit, more than any other benefit, is the one that causes the problems. Time after time in my twice-weekly advice sessions, I see people with administrative problems with housing benefit, yet the House does not take decisions on administration. One might question whether we would take better decisions on it, but if we examine the sort of decisions taken on administration at the moment, we would reach the conclusion that we could do a better job than the current process allows. I therefore recommend my amendment (a). 
 Amendment (b) would ensure that the Government would consult widely before issuing any regulations under new clause 7. I am tempted to have another consultation debate, but that really would try your patience, Mr. O'Hara, and that of other members of the Committee. Hon. Members understand the sort of people that the Secretary of State should consult. I recommend my amendment to the Minister. I know that Ministers do not like to have a statutory duty to consult before issuing regulations, as they say that they adopt best practice in any case. However, given the nature of benefit sanctions, it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to consult those people. I hope that the Minister will take my amendments in the spirit in which they are meant.

Frank Field: Before the Minister replies, will he help us with amendment (b). Given that new clauses 3 and 4, which we accepted, say that the declarations are the result of other proceedings brought before the courts, the actual costs of the declarations will surely be minuscule.

Malcolm Wicks: The cases will come before the courts in the normal way, so I can confirm that the extra costs will be very small indeed. We believe that a central register of court declarations kept by my Department is the fairest, most efficient and cost-effective way for the policy to work. It is in line with what already happens with our sanction for benefit fraud.
 I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. He approaches the issue with good intentions, but I have an opposing view about what would happen if the local authority kept the register. There are 408 local authorities administering housing benefit. As a London Member he knows—as I know and as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) knows—that there is often great movement of tenants and others across Greater London. The same will be true of many other parts of the country. What would happen if the record 
 is kept in Kingston, and the tenant then moves to Croydon, Lambeth, Enfield, Edmonton or even out of Greater London? The idea that there is somehow an easy administrative capacity to keep a check on such people across 408 local authorities is, with due respect, totally absurd. 
 As the Minister responsible for housing benefit—a complex area that we are trying to reform and simplify—I am concerned that we should not place additional burdens on local authorities. It is altogether more sensible, therefore, for my Department to keep the register—it is the only feasible way of keeping track of people who move between areas. Otherwise, people could avoid a sanction or receive a less severe sanction simply by moving house. In many respects, we are protecting the position of local authorities. 
 Questions were asked about what civil cases will be prescribed, but they are questions of substance about new clause 4, and new clause 7 is purely procedural. No regulations are introduced by it: it merely prescribes how regulations may be made under other clauses. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton must believe me when I tell him that it is a purely technical clause. As for his charge that we do not discuss housing benefit administration in the House, I invite him to come and sit in on the statutory instruments debate that is to take place on Monday, when we will discuss contracting out proposals. He will see that we regularly discuss such things in Committee. I invite him to turn up as my guest—as long as he does not participate. 
 My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said that our colleague on the Committee, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, was clearly an example of good behaviour following sanctions policy. I am not at all disputing your authoritative and wise judgments today, Mr. O'Hara—although it seems like more than one day—but I am bound to say that, so far there seem to have been 12 strikes and he is still not out. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 7 - Regulations

'(1) Subject to subsection (6), in this Act ''prescribed'' means prescribed, or of a description prescribed, by regulations made by the Secretary of State. 
 (2) Any power to make regulations under this Act is exercisable by statutory instrument. 
 (3) Subsections (4) to (7) of section 189 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c.5) (supplemental and incidental provision) apply in relation to the powers to make regulations conferred by this Act as they apply in relation to the powers to make regulations conferred by that Act. 
 (4) Subject to subsection (5), a statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. 
 (5) Subsection (4) does not apply in the case of an instrument containing regulations under section (administration) only. 
 Such an instrument is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. 
 (6) In the application of section (administration) in relation to any court in Scotland, ''prescribed'' means— 
 (a) in relation to declarations under section (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings), prescribed by the High Court of Justiciary by Act of Adjournal, and 
 (b) in relation to declarations under section (anti-social behaviour declarations: civil proceedings), prescribed by the Court of Session by Act of Sederunt. 
 (7) The power of the Court of Session by Act of Sederunt to regulate the procedure and practice in civil proceedings in the sheriff court includes power to regulate— 
 (a) the manner in which the court must notify the Secretary of State of the fact that it has made, quashed or set aside a declaration under this Act, or varied the date or dates specified in such a declaration under section (anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings)(4) or (anti-social behaviour declarations: civil proceedings)(4), and 
 (b) the information which the court must give to the Secretary of State. 
 (8) Subsections (4) and (5) do not apply to Acts of Adjournal and Acts of Sederunt.'.—[Malcolm Wicks.]
 Brought up, and read the First and Second time. 
 Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (b), in line 36, at end add— 
'(9) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult— 
 (a) organisations representing tenants, 
 (b) organisations representing landlords, 
 (c) organisations representing persons living in fuel poverty, and 
 (d) other such persons as he deems appropriate.'.—[Mr. Edward Davey.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause added to the Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in line 1, leave out
'Secretary of State to withhold'
 and insert 'withholding of'. 
 There is little to say about the amendment, but that is only my opinion. It simply amends the Bill's long title to clarify that the Secretary of State would not be responsible for withholding housing benefit. Local authorities administer housing benefit so they would take the decision to withhold, although the decision would be triggered by notification by the Department for Work and Pensions. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Greg Knight: I support the amendment, but I thought that it might be appropriate to put on record my appreciation of your fair, good-natured, impartial and extremely patient chairmanship, Mr. O'Hara. If you have erred in our proceedings, you have erred in favour of the minority, which is how things should be. In this Committee, there has not been a silent minority but a rather verbose minority. After reflecting on the behaviour and words of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, his party's policy on antisocial behaviour is crystal clear and simple: Liberal Democrats are clearly the yob's best friend.

Edward Davey: Just for the record, I think that the right hon. Gentleman's comments ill become him.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

James Clappison: May I associate myself with the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight)? You have been a model Chairman, Mr. O'Hara, and it has been a great pleasure for us all to serve under you. You have given all points of view a fair hearing, as well as reflecting the interests of others, if I may put it that way.

Frank Field: May I add my thanks to you, Mr. O'Hara, for the way in which you have steered our deliberations over two sittings? The Bill has benefited greatly from that, as it has from its rewriting. I am grateful for the modesty of my hon. Friend the Minister that he did not put his name in the Bill's title, given how it has been transformed by our proceedings today.
 Temperatures have risen during our debates, but it is worth putting on the record the fact that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has been very brave. Our constituents will pay increasing attention to where we stand on the issues with which the Bill deals. The private behaviour of some individuals makes it impossible for others to live a civilised existence, and the will of the country in that respect is clear. I am sure that in the lead-up to and during the next election more and more of our electors will want to know where we stand on the new politics of behaviour. In the past, they were not interested in how we voted on such matters, but I think that their interest will grow. While it is a part of good parliamentary democracy that there are minorities, we will increasingly be held to account for what we say here.

Edward Davey: May I say that I am particularly grateful to you, Mr. O'Hara, for the patience with which you heard me and for your guidance? Although you will not be surprised to hear that I did not necessarily agree with some of your rulings, and that I would have liked to have spent more time debating some important issues, I feel that you have treated me fairly and I am grateful. I would not want anyone to think otherwise.
 I will not make a long speech opposing the Bill. I simply say that I believe that the right hon. Member 
 for Birkenhead, whom I have long respected for his innovative thinking, will come to regret the legislation. Presumably he will think that it is effective, but he will see that other measures are needed to tackle antisocial behaviour. I will not labour that point. 
 I am strongly in favour of a panoply of measures, unlike the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, who wanted to sloganise in the Committee. The Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of tough action on antisocial behaviour, and I sought to explain that. I simply believe that the measure will be counter-productive, and that has been the thrust of my argument. I fear that if the Bill is enacted, we will see more antisocial behaviour, not less.

George Howarth: I associate myself with the various congratulations to you, Mr. O'Hara, on your chairing of these proceedings. I have more reason than any other member of the Committee to know that those skills have been developed over many years. With your indulgence, I will share a little secret about your patience.
 In the early 1980s—my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead will also remember this—when we were going through some political convulsions in our part of the world, I was often filled with wonder at how you managed to keep your calm through some very difficult meetings. At the end of one such meeting with the Militant Tendency, you explained that you had kept calm by translating ''Oh my darling Clementine'' into Latin. I hesitate to think what translations you have been making during our proceedings today.

Edward O'Hara: It was actually, ''Oh dear, what can the matter be?''

Andrew Selous: As a Back-Bench Committee member, I, too, put on record my thanks for your chairmanship, Mr. O'Hara. I want also to express my frustration at being unable to express some of my views because of the way in which the debate developed. I believe that many Committee members would have liked to have contributed, but held back, and I want to put that on the record.

Vernon Coaker: I join in the general congratulations to you, Mr. O'Hara, and associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire. Many of us had points that we would have liked to make throughout the day. We have been discussing one of the most important issues facing my constituents and others throughout the country. It is something on which we must all put our heads together.
 I just want to make one final point to my hon. Friend the Minister. We have discussed the Bill's title, which notes the permission to withhold payment of housing benefit. There is a plethora of measures to deal with antisocial behaviour, and I hope that when the Bill finally gets on to the statute book, it will be properly used. Many of our constituents feel that although many measures are available to the police and local councils, few are used, and the consequence 
 of those measures not being used is that their lives are made a misery.

Malcolm Wicks: In adding my sincere thanks to those of my colleagues for the way in which you enabled us to get through the business, Mr. O'Hara, I must say that I sympathise with hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have not had the opportunity to speak on behalf of their constituents. That has been a real concern today. You have been very fair to our Liberal Democrat colleague. It was Voltaire who once said of someone:
''I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.''
 I do not feel quite so inclined towards the hon. Gentleman after such long proceedings, but I might be braver and more generous tomorrow. 
 I recently went to a test cricket match—sadly, England lost to India. I was intrigued by the scoreboard, which showed both the runs required per over and the actual run rate. There was a great discrepancy between the two today, but we managed to catch up remarkably quickly, thanks to your wise chairmanship, Mr. O'Hara. We are all genuinely grateful for the way in which you handled today's events.

Edward O'Hara: I shall have the last word from the Chair and perform the necessary duty of expressing my appreciation to the Committee members for their demeanour. Although there was general feeling of frustration at several points, I appreciated their control and, when control was lost, the disciplined way in which the frustration was expressed. It was appreciated and helped me in chairing the Committee. I express my thanks to all concerned for their assistance to me in conducting what was not the easiest business.
 I thank also those on my left. I shall name three clerks: Mr. Lloyd, who has been invaluable by my side for most of our proceedings, Mr. Cranmer, who has helped on other occasions, and Mr. Poyser, who has come in at the back of the Room. We owe a great debt to him for laying the procedural minefield that we have managed to negotiate. It was not an easy job, and I thank him for that. I thank also the Hansard reporters, who have coped with not the easiest of tasks, and the attendants, who have not had the most difficult job of keeping things in order, but they would have helped if we had needed them. I am sure that they anticipated that the frustration would break out into direct action. 
 I also thank those on my right. They are traditionally seen but not heard, but on this occasion they had a particular role: I was very grateful on several occasions to be able to borrow their highlighter to help me to identify key points and keep us in order. 
 The hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East has now left the Room, but he referred to my propensity to quote Latin. I did not intend to, but I made several remarks in Latin. I was musing. I often turn to Juvenal for the apposite quotation. He said, 
''Quis tulerit gracchos de seditione querentes.''
 I shall explain that: the brothers Gracchi were tribunes of the people in ancient Rome. They were noted for 
 direct action. Juvenal was saying, ''Who takes any notice of the Gracchi if they complain about action that was out of order?'' 
 That theme has underlined much of the Committee's debates. We have reached the end of a Bill that deals with a delicate subject. I appreciate the principles of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, but I was pleased to hear him say that, although I had to rein him in on occasions, I did my 
 best to give him the full opportunity to express his views. With those words of appreciation, I shall perform my last duty to the Committee. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at twenty-six minutes past Five o'clock.